I think Juan Cole is right when he lists some of the bad consequences of a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear research facilities. It would likely cause a spike in oil prices that would not be appreciated by anyone. It would likely cause a barrage of rocket fire from southern Lebanon and Gaza that would necessitate yet another Israeli-Lebanon war. European public opinion would be sufficiently horrified by Israel’s actions to take unprecedented economic steps to punish them. The Syrian resistance would be crushed and the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis strengthened. Iraq would probably join that axis in important respects. Egypt could conceivably rip up the Camp David accords.
On the other hand, if Israel is restrained and patient, the Russians’ worst fear may be realized. The Assad regime will fall, eliminating Russian influence in the country and creating a break in the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis. Hezbollah would be weakened and Israel’s northern border would become more secure. Iran’s ability to make trouble on Israel’s borders would be diminished and their position in the region would be contained and isolated.
Sometimes I feel like Israeli political leaders need Iran to provide an excuse for inaction on the peace process and support for a deteriorating status quo. But the truth is that Israel learned during the 2006 war with Lebanon that they are extremely vulnerable to rocket attack and they have no idea how to solve that problem, which is only getting worse. Simply put, Israel feels too insecure to talk peace. They are too insecure to politically get away with making concessions. Unless the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis can be broken and Israel’s borders secured, the politics in Israel will continue to be extremely unfavorable.
I admit to having a nuanced view which might be hard to discern since it doesn’t fall neatly on one side or the other of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. My view is that Iran’s influence in Syria and Lebanon is bad for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It’s bad for the Palestinians because it makes any progress for peace impossible, and it makes the Israelis act in a very bellicose and defensive manner. It’s bad for Israelis because it they are ringed by increasingly accurate and well-armed rockets that they cannot adequately defend. The result is a status quo in which the position of both the Israelis and the Palestinians grows worse every day. The Israeli civilian population becomes more vulnerable while the Palestinians lose more land with the passage of time.
As the much stronger party, the Israelis won’t negotiate or make needed concessions if they don’t feel secure, and Iran’s actions make them feel less and less secure. This is more than an ideological position. It’s a psychological reality that creates political constraints. Anyone who thinks Israel will behave better toward the Palestinians if they are threatened is simply wrong, in my opinion.
To give an example, one can plausibly argue that Hezbollah won the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon War but you can’t say the same for the Palestinians. I don’t see how the Palestinians benefitted in any way.
Outside actions that bolster Israeli insecurity and paranoia wind up empowering the right-wing in Israeli politics, and that is always going to be bad news for the Palestinians and peace. That is the main result of the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis, and it’s why breaking that axis is in the interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
It would be quite amazing if the Israelis torpedoed the imminent break in that axis by making a preemptive attack on Iran that strengthened it. This is true especially because such an attack would rupture Israel’s relations with Turkey, Egypt, (probably) Jordan, and Europe, while quietly infuriating the American governing classes and Pentagon.
